About your Search

20110701
20110701
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
says it implicates hezbollah. >> a french hostage released by the taliban tells the bbc he believes the deal was done to secure his freedom. and canada welcomes william and kate on their first official trip abroad. it's 2:00 a.m. here in london. >> it is 9:00 a.m. here in singapore. broadcasting to viewers on pbs in america and around the world. this is newsday. >> the chinese communist party is celebrating its 90th anniversary. the world's largest political party with a membership of more than 18 million. and it's managed to stay in power elsewhere have been pushed aside. our correspondent, michael bristow, traveled to the city of yen-on in northern china. the communist base during the civil war more than 60 years ago and considered by many as a birthplace of china's communist revolution. >> the communists like to celebrate their victory. they do it twice a day. there's courage in sacrifice but most of it on one side. they see a partial version of history with a clear message. mao tse-tung's party saved the country. this propaganda is fed to the young, they love the party even befo
released by the taliban told the bbc he believes the deal was done to secure his freedom. canada welcomes william and kate on their first official trip abroad. it is 11:00 a.m. here in singapore. >> we're broadcasting to viewers on pbs america and around the world. >> venezuelan president hugo job as within the last few hours held -- hugo chavez with in the last few hours held a press conference. he is recovering from surgery. the president acknowledged he had a tumor and had undergone surgery to remove a cancerous cells. he says he is determined to fight and is on the road to recovery. sara joins me now. after watching the footage over the last few days, this comes as a bit of a surprise. >> it does. it is quite a big admission because the government has tried to manage this illness. the president has let information out here and there, but no great disclosure. this speech by the president somewhat unexpected and very serious. it was very obvious from watching it that he has had some serious health problems. he lost a lot of weight. his voice is much weaker than we are used to hearing. v
are we supposed to say? recent reports show we're in conversations with the taliban who will never win an election in afghanistan but we can't talk to the muslim brotherhood? i'm not sure we have much choice. >> michael, let me come back to you on that point because i think the taliban situation where it has been articulated clearly by the u.s. government that we want to enter into negotiation with them, there's a report in the financial times today that details the number of meetings we have been having with them. there is a case where there is no democratic process but we are still negotiating with a terrorist organization. do you think that is wise policy or should we simply have an absolute rule we won't deal with organizations that we deem to be terrorists? >> no, i don't think we should have a hard and fast rule on anything, really. i think you have to take the world as it comes. we're talking to the taliban because the president and the republicans have decided to surrender there, and we're looking for a way out without getting embarrassed. the taliban will control that. so i do
that is capable of withstanding the radical taliban and other elements. one of my questions, madam chair, is going to be questioning the sustainability of the efforts. congress has appropriated over $60 billion for relief and reconstruction in afghanistan. the great majority of which has been channeled through private contractors. we know from experience in bosnia in the 1990's and more recently in iraq that a reduction in troop levels as not mean a drop in contractor activity. in some cases, it is a matter of increase. there has been increase reliance on contractors to fulfill the logistical roles once performed by the military in those instances. eventually, the contractor presence will also decrease as we move support of large-scale off-budget scanned it -- spending to more direct to the afghan government directly. this is why our reconstruction strategy must focus on insuring that afghans can sustain what we have helped build. how many additional schools and health, as we can construct, but also that there are teachers and health care officials to sustain those institutions. whether afghans ha
is a real signal from the taliban and network they can go to a target right in the heart of the capital. if the karzai forces we've been training up can't defend -- they responded well in the emergency, we're told, but if they can't respond in kabul, isn't that a signal it's going to be a long haul, and maybe there is no legacy end of the tunnel? >> i think the reset of our afghan policy last week by the president was correct. i think it was long in coming. i was never a fan of the surge or the counterinsurgency doctrine. karzai is not a willing partner. last week this mumbai style shooting attack, it could have been worse. i would give the afghans a little credit, but it was staged by the hakani gnat wornetwork, protected group, protected by the pakistani government. that group comes over the border regularly, kills our troops and obviously now is prepared to shoot at big targets in afghanistan. it's a bad signal about how ready the pakistanis are to confront terror networks in their own country. >> jane harman from the woodrow wilson center, thank you very much. >>> and up next here,
of united states meetings with taliban officials and also what pakistan can bring to the table? pakistan has talked frequently about needing to have a seat at the table. what do you bring to the table? the americans have said you need to either sever your relationship for example with the haqqani network or bring them into this process. what can pakistan do in order to make this process work better? >> first of all, we support a reconciliation in afghanistan because we understand that wars essentially always and through some kind of reconciliation and talks anyway. so, the reconciliation process in afghanistan has to be led at the afghans. it is their country, and to bring to an and the eternal conflict in afghanistan that started after the departure of the soviets way back in 89. the soviets -- continued to hold on and after 1992 there was the famous war that brought the taliban to power. so we did not want in any way to intervene in the internal afghan process. it has to be an afghan-led process. we are very closely in contact with the afghan leadership. president karzai has visited pakist
by a battalion. there were no casualties. it was taliban territory it from day one that the u.s. came into -- >> why didn't you do the same thing on this road? >> our experience working on roads in the area indicated that it was not like -- >> once you figured out it was, why didn't you go back to the drawing board and do what you had done in the previous incident? >> senator, i think that is a great question, and my understanding with this hearing is getting to the lessons learned. going back to my opening statement, where i said we cannot just look at the metric of scope schedule budget, there comes a time when we probably should have stepped back and said, we have to change the scope, because we need to get the road and, but maybe there's a different way of getting it done. what ended up happening is we all went into a reactive mode. we had the security situation and had to increase the security of footprint to prevent that particular situation from happening again. from the lessons learned, we had to recognize how the security environment can change relatively quickly in the conti
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)